Court Rulings

Hamilton bought a round of shots for J.F. and her friends at a bar. J.F. accused Hamilton of drugging her, separating her from her friends, taking her to an apartment without her consent while she was unconscious, and sexually assaulting her. Hamilton told the investigating detective, Slay, that J.F. had sent him multiple texts while they were drinking together at the bars and sent him texts the day after the alleged sexual assault. At trial, J.F. testified she thought her drink had drugs in it because she could not remember much after she had taken the shot. J.F. told the jury the next thing she remembered was waking up on her stomach in an apartment, with her hands being held above her head, and Hamilton was having sex with her. J.F. testified that she did not agree to have sex with Hamilton. Hamilton claimed the sex was consensual. Slay testified that police department personnel downloaded the contents of Hamilton's and J.F.'s phones and generated reports (the reports) reflecting the phones' contents. The prosecutor did not seek to introduce into evidence the reports or testimony of police department employees who had examined the phones or generated the reports. Instead, Slay testified that, based on his review of the reports, neither phone contained text messages from J.F. to Hamilton. Hamilton was convicted of one count of sexual assault and one count of distribution of a controlled substance. On appeal, Hamilton argued that the district court erred in allowing Slay to testify about the contents of J.F.'s and Hamilton's phones. Hamilton did not preserve his argument that the district court erred in admitting Slay's testimony regarding the contents of Hamilton's phone, but preserved his argument that the court erred in allowing Slay to testify regarding the contents of J.F.'s phone. A computer-generated report of a cell phone's contents is not hearsay as long as it was created without human input or interaction. To qualify as a computer-generated report that do

Insurance—Underinsured Motorist Benefits—Unreasonable Delay/Denial of Payment. The Supreme Court held that under CRS § 10-3-1115 insurers have a duty not to unreasonably delay or deny payment of covered benefits, even though other components of an insured's claim may still be reasonably in dispute. Here, an insurer issued multiple underinsured motorist insurance policies that covered a driver who was injured by an underinsured motorist. Though the insurer agreed that its policies covered the driver's medical expenses, it refused to pay them because the insurer disputed other amounts (including lost wages) that the driver sought under the policies. A jury found that the insurer violated CRS § 10-3-1115, which provides that an insurer "shall not unreasonably delay or deny payment of a claim for benefits owed to or on behalf of any first-party [insured] claimant." Because the Court of Appeals properly upheld the driver's jury award, the Court affirmed its judgment.

T-Z-, 24 I&N Dec. 163 (BIA 2007) ID 3564 (PDF) (1) An abortion is forced by threats of harm when a reasonable person would objectively view the threats for refusing the abortion to be genuine, and the threatened harm, if carried out, would rise to the level of persecution. (2) Nonphysical forms of harm, such as the deliberate imposition of severe economic disadvantage or the deprivation of liberty, food, housing, employment, or other essentials of life, may amount to persecution. (3) When an Immigration Judge denies asylum solely in the exercise of discretion and then grants withholding of removal, 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(e) (2006) requires the Immigration Judge to reconsider the denial of asylum to take into account factors relevant to family unification.